Rush Limbaugh

I want to comment on the commotion over Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word “slut” to describe law student Sandra Fluke. Fluke, as you know, argued before a house congressional committee that women need taking care of. That is, if they should take it into their fluffy little heads to have sex with someone, they can’t be expected to manage the consequences all by their little selves. Someone else has got to pay for their contraception – preferably a big strong man like Barack Obama. Barack Obama has lots and lots of money. Chicks dig that. In fact, he’s so powerful, he just took the money from other people. What a turn on for girly girls like Sandra!

Anyway, Rush called her a slut, probably hoping that that sort of ungentlemanly behavior toward women would land him a show on HBO like that super cool Bill Maher, who called Governor Sarah Palin the c-word (whatever that is) and entertained guests who fantasized about raping Michele Bachmann. If only Rush could get a show like Bill Maher then he could be bitter and irrelevant too – probably the only things missing from Rush’s life.

So now the left is calling for Rush’s head and the right is arguing hotly that the left says equally misogynist things and even sometimes dumps their women into the water and then leaves them there locked in a car to drown while they go back to their hotel to chat with their friends and call their lawyer. And yet a leftist killer of women can go on to become the Lion of the Senate, and even a piece of work like James Carville who implied one of his boss’s sexual harassment victims was trailer trash gets a network gig. Hey, maybe Rush was trying to get a network gig like James Carville!

Post navigation

91 thoughts on “Rush Limbaugh”

Well, Rush could always go back on the offensive since she didn’t except his apology.

Apologies are overated any way. Look at Obama’s apology to Afghanistan. They didn’t accept it. Now Afghanistan has executed two US field grade officers and want even more justice. And what would an apology do for Obama lying to the world about Osama being buried at sea?

I thought he was over the top last week. He didn’t need to go after her personally to discredit her testimony. He could’ve focused on her cost claims without mentioning her sex life. Maybe she uses those expensive “designer” condoms that are being advertised. Who knows, needs to know or cares.

He could’ve also focused on the political pandering to buy votes by offering something to women for “free”. There are tens of millions of American women who use contraceptives. Making all of that “free” will likely cost billions of dollars each year.

Do you think Rush knows much about the varieties and costs of prescription birth control?

He had people call in who told him the price of generic contraceptives at Target and Wal Mart. He also has a staff to help find out that kind of info.

Condoms are not prescription birth control.

I never said they were. She claimed she was spending $1000 a year for contraceptives. Unless she’s either a) using a LOT of contraceptives or b) using very expensive contraceptives, the numbers just don’t add up. For example, some people are allergic to latex (deadly so) so they have to use much more expensive non-latex condoms such as these. They cost over $2 each. There are also more expensive than generic latex condoms out there. The point is, her $1000 a year number seems highly suspect and he could’ve challenged her credability more than her character.

Also, didn’t Obama’s mandate say that the insurance companies had to provide any type of approved contraceptive? If so, that sounds like it would include condoms.

There are cheap oral contraceptives at Target and WalMart, but they aren’t appropriate for all women, and not all women live near a Target or WalMart.

What women are they not appropriate for? How is that decided? Is there an exam involved? Do they have a say in it? Is their co-pay adjusted for travel distance to the nearest Wal-mart? Is Target involved? Or Gap?

Ken– that’s not nice. We should have sympathy for this “coed”. She’s exposing herself as and “attention whore” and a lousy winner, and best of all, in a span of a week is going to go down the route that it took Cindy Sheehan years to travel.

I agree with Bart here. Not to be deliberately insulting, but I imagine we’ll find that she’s been fighting for a service she probably wou;dn’t use herself. Instead, she’s probably been fighting for some sort of ideal of naive woman who would get knocked up or worse, if they weren’t plied with free condoms and birth control.

The only problem with that ideal is that free isn’t that much cheaper than cheap. If someone can’t be bothered to use cheap condoms and birth control when having sex or just afterward, they aren’t going to be bothered to do it when such things are free either. Maybe if there are stacks of free condoms available at the time of sex, they might use it.

C’mon. She wants to invite Uncle Sam into her bedroom for a threesome, expecting him to not only bring the contraceptives, but to also be the only one in the room she can trust to make sure they get used (properly).

Danae & Leland, if you’re reading this, I apologize for not replying to your comments to me on the 96+ long comment thread.

I finally read Sandra Fluke’s testimony to the members of Congress she was addressing. Her remarks were fairly short, and I recommend anyone interested in the subject stop for just a moment and read them. I found them here:

In order to give you a flavor of the testimony, I’m going to quote an excerpt, but I’m going to edit it heavily — please don’t criticize my edits – I’m warning you that they are out-of-context, and you can read them in context at the link above:

“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. […]
[…]
Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
[…]
“Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.

Unfortunately for her narrative, the policy does cover contraceptives for non-contraceptive use. I wonder if her tale is even true. Will any reporter ask her to prove it? Or will she just say, “Oh, my friend is afraid to come forward, because of the war on (lying) women.”

Further, if the policy simply allowed doctors to prescribe medicine for their patients without questioning it because of religious reasons, she wouldn’t have a story to tell about her friend. (Rand, I chose that phrasing to allow for your skepticism about Fluke’s story.)

My argument is that this is about medicine and religion and health insurance. I think people who want to stand up for freedom of religion have a good point. I think those who want to take various positions on how health care is paid for all have good points….

…. but Leland asked me this: “Why must others be forced to financially support Ms. Fluke’s sexual desires? Why can’t she take personal responsibility for her own birth control?”

I don’t think Fluke has a good point at all!

Fluke testimony (believe it or don’t believe it) was about medicine and religion and health insurance – it was not about sexual desires, and this is why insults of a sexual nature, and even more respectful questions like Leland’s are based on a misunderstanding of what Fluke was talking about.

The testimony you presented doesn’t answer the question at all. If you used critical thinking skills, you’ll note this emphasis:

“Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy.”

As Rand noted, the prescription is available for her illness. The solution to her denial doesn’t require federal law. The solution is for her to sue the insurance agency for failing to meet the obligations of its contract with her. You would think a student of law would be capable of understanding the difference in a violation of a contract and the need for a federal law.

But now, I ask you the question again:

“Why must others be forced to financially support Ms. Fluke’s sexual desires? Why can’t she take personal responsibility for her own birth control?”

I wasn’t making a point, I asked a question. I just note you refuse to answer the question. I’m starting to believe you are incapable of individual thought. Otherwise, you wouldn’t so heavily depend on quoting others.

I should rephrase: the prescription is covered for the illness, as Rand noted.

But since I’m rephrasing, maybe this might help Bob attempt some critical thought: What would have happened if the doctor didn’t find the cyst? It happens all the time. Bob, do you know what happens when a patient goes to a doctor concerned about a serious illness, and the doctor doesn’t catch it? Do we pass new federal laws when that happens?

Bob-1, what does breech of contract have to do with requiring insurance companies to provide free birth control?

As Rand noted, prescription contraceptives for non-contraceptive use is already covered by insurance. So requiring insurance companies to pay for contraceptives, isn’t going to matter to that situation. So yes, it’s about providing contraceptives (probably, brand name as opposed to generic contraceptives) to people who should already be able to afford it.

BTW, I note this from the link title provided:transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care

Bob, do you think women don’t have access to contraception? If that’s her argument in summation, she’s hasn’t tried hard enough to find them. If you need help Bob, try a local CVS near the pharmacy part of the store. Or is the complaint that there are condom dispensers in the men’s room at gas stations and not the women’s? If so, I can’t speak to that, because I don’t tend to use the ladies room. Let me know if you find the answer, Bob?

I reject the idea that Fluke’s testimony is about breach of contract. Did you read her testimony?

She said: “Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.
“When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university”

So, there are several points here.

The first and foremost point is that she was talking about other religious institutions which do not make an exception for other medical needs. This alone shows that she was simply talking about a breach of contract.

The second point is that she was talking about the need for a legal requirement for such exceptions.

The third point is that she doesn’t want religious bans on contraception to dictate the terms of religious institutions’ health insurance (such as the terms of a non-contraceptive medical needs exception), because it leads to intrusive question and over-zealous enforcement, such as the case of her friend with the ovarian cysts.

The commentary on this matter from right wing has largely consisted of a focus on Fluke herself, and on Georgetown’s particular insurance policy, whereas Flukes’ testimony was not primarily about her own case, or even about Georgetown’s particular insurance policy.

When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

One more reason for the federal government not to be involved in healthcare.

And yeah, I noticed you are still afraid or incapable of answering the question.

“Why must others be forced to financially support Ms. Fluke’s sexual desires? Why can’t she take personal responsibility for her own birth control?”

This is entirely the wrong question. If Ms. Fluke needed knee surgery, you wouldn’t ask “why must others be forced to financially support Ms. Fluke’s ambulatory desires? Why ca’t she take personally responsibility for her own health care?”

But if you did ask that question, then we would be have one of the two sensible conversations we could have — the one about health care. (The other one is about religion.) I wanted to abstain from a general health care conversation because, as Titus noted, we’ve been over that ground many many times and we’ve gotten nowhere here. Clearly some people can afford to pay for their own medical needs, while others need some kind of insurance program, and how those insurance programs ought to work has been the subject of a national debate. Fortunately, due to the Democratic Party, things are getting better. The only reason I’m participating in these conversations about Sandra Fluke is to point out that talking about Sandra Fluke’s sexual desires is inappropriate and irrelevant. It is a damn shame that the issue wasn’t Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions, because then maybe we’d be having the *other* sensible and interesting conversation — the one about religion.

I mean, it’s not like they just passed some monstrous piece of legislation ostensibly to help people buy insurance. No, it seems the real goal was to bring the Catholic Church, an organization which competes for the hearts and minds of followers with the Democratic Party, to heel or something.

And to be clear:This is entirely the wrong question. If Ms. Fluke needed knee surgery, you wouldn’t ask “why must others be forced to financially support Ms. Fluke’s ambulatory desires?

Ms. Fluke’s friend was covered by the insurance. Making B/C free or providing more options would have done nothing to remedy the problem her friend faced. The only remedy suggested by Ms. Fluke is to mandate B/C coverage meerly for sexual purposes. So my question is exactly to the point. The rest of us have noted plenty of other remedies, such as suing the insurer for breach of contract, selecting another insurer, or perhaps even deciding $3000/yr to save your life is better than purchasing an useless law degree in an overly-saturated market.

Further, if Ms. Fluke got her wish, instead of “university administrators or other employers” deciding what is covered, it won’t be “women and their doctors“; it will be legislators and bureaucrats making the decision. Note the decisions they are already making in school lunch programs.

Bob-1 quotes Fluke: Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs.

The question it seems no one has asked (at least, no one here or at the very extensive discussion at Volokh Conspiracy) is: who are the “many religious institutions” who deny access to contraceptives even for non-contraceptive medical use? Because Catholic doctrine specifically allows the use of contraceptive medicines for non-contraceptive medical use, it can’t be the Catholic Church that is denying this access for religious reasons. Section 15 of Humanae Vitae says

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

So who are these other institutions? Do the Baptists forbid contraception, even for non-contraceptive purposes? If so, why didn’t Fluke go to a Baptist law school to do her activism?

“Further, if the policy simply allowed doctors to prescribe medicine for their patients without questioning it because of religious reasons”

Doctors can prescribe whatever they want but the insurance company wont pick up the tab unless it is in the policy. No one is preventing doctors from prescribing BC. This isn’t about preventing people from using BC.

No one wants to ban BC or prevent women or men from choosing to use it.

You’re right, and I understand all of that. Obviously, I should have said “If the policy simply covered the medicine the doctors prescribe for their patients without making exceptions for religious reasons, she wouldn’t have a story to tell about her friend”.

I continue to think this is not a salacious case about sex, but rather, an interesting case about the intersection of religion and the way we provide health insurance in this country. Understandably, everyone would rather talk about sex.

Well, as I wrote over at Volokh, Limbaugh’s great misbegotten contribution to the dialogue was to remind everyone that it is about the sex. It’s not just about the Pope pontificating about some insane doctrine about geocentrism or heteroskedasticity, this is about sex. Religions have always concerned themselves with sexual behavior. The Obama administration would like to limit even further the ability of religious organizations to have any real effect in the world. He is okay with the preaching, but the rules bother him, especially rules that interfere with the progressive agenda. It’s time to say no to O.

Bob: Non-Negotiable: No Catholic or Catholic institution may offer or artificial contraceptives to any woman.

Let’s bring it on home: Even if my own wife had a cyst the size of a durian fruit, I know she would never ask for nor take any sort of artificial contraceptive. Why? Because she is a Catholic woman, and would rather die in agony than deliberately disobey God’s law.

Suffering is not evil. Suffering is what being a Christian is about. God didn’t spare His own Son the sufferings of this life — why should he spare us? It is a privilege to suffer and die for the sake of Christ.

In any case, this whole affair has no purpose other than to bring the Catholic Church in America to heel.It won’t work. Sure, most Catholics use birth control, and most support this crazy law, too. It doesn’t matter. God knows His own, and His own are the Catholic faithful who will be made to suffer for defying this law. The rest are apostates. It really is just that simple.

It’ll be instructive to watch the sheep being separated from the goats.

The Roman Catholic Church supports pain management even though that often uses medications which can be readily abused. So I see no reason they wouldn’t support the use of medications for saving lives, which could be, but weren’t misused (in the sense of the Church) for contraception.

Let’s bring it on home: Even if my own wife had a cyst the size of a durian fruit, I know she would never ask for nor take any sort of artificial contraceptive. Why? Because she is a Catholic woman, and would rather die in agony than deliberately disobey God’s law.

Before she dies in agony, you might want to check the actual doctrine and not just go with what you picked up from the local padre. The encyclical Humanae Vitae, which deals with contraception, specifically allows the use of contraceptives for non-contraceptive medical purposes.

40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

Do you really think over 40% of the female students are suffering from health problems that require prescription contraceptives? That’s at least 40% because that the claimed number who are struggling financially.

We could also look at the sentence just before your quote

“In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences

which indicates that she is now changing from contraceptives as birth control to medical conditions.

Let me say that, after reading her testimony closely, I have even less respect for her due the massive and blatant lies that sprinkle it.

What makes this clever lying is that she probably is in a strict sense telling the truth. She probably could have gotten 40% of the Georgetown Law to complain that they were struggling financially because they weren’t getting whatever the cause of the day is. What is highly deceptive is that she should know that even if the number is true, it’s nonsense. Those Georgetown Law students might think they’re struggling because of cheap rather than free contraceptives, but we shouldn’t take such claims seriously.

As to the second claim, we already have the “worst case” (which turned out to be irrelevant to the argument because it was a breach of contract). It doesn’t matter than she can’t actually point to an example of the worst case happening. This is a classic example of lying through slanting of fact.

40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

Well, there are roughly 1000 female law students at Georgetown Law. If we take Fluke at her word, then over 400 of them “reported to us” [who is “us”? Sandra Fluke and Nancy Pelosi?] complaining about the cost of birth control. Presumably some number x “reported to us” that they could handle the cost just fine, thank you very much, and some other number y said they did not use birth control at all. Progressives mock that last possibility, but Georgetown being Catholic and all, one might guess that the proportion of Catholics among the student population is somewhat higher than in the general population. In any event, the 40% number looks highly suspicious to me. As a former denizen of a college campus, I can now reveal that most college students prefer not to interact at all with the kind of creepy, glassy-eyed activist of Fluke’s ilk who inhabit the dark corners of every college campus. I would be surprised if she got even 30 responses to a questionnaire about contraception, much less 400+x+y.

And if the 40% number is not the absolute proportion of the student population, but an estimate made from a sample of the student body, then you have to ask about the bias of that sample. Was it a questionnaire handed out in the quad one day? Was it a phone survey? An email from the Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice? What was the response rate? How did Fluke correct for sampling bias, if at all? Most importantly, if the 40% came from a survey, why did Fluke describe the result as “40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported…” instead of “40% of the female students at Georgetown Law responding to an LSRJ survey reported…”? Because it sounds more impressive to imply that 400 females, instead of 12 females, are having trouble making ends meet?

I didn’t say she did, I just wondered if she did. I have no way of knowing. It sounds like an improbable story to me.

Any, if she’s not a slut, she’s certainly an attention whore. And if she’s so broke she can’t afford something that’s less than the price of a daily latte, who is paying for her PR expenses? And why doesn’t someone in the press ask?

She testified to Congress, was slandered repeatedly by a major national figure, and has been asked by other national media types to comment. I guess the appropriate thing for her to do was stay home like a good little girl and let a bunch of middle-aged clerics tell her what to do.

I said she was an “attention” whore. One could call men that, too. It has nothing to do with sex (or gender).

She testified to Congress, was slandered repeatedly by a major national figure, and has been asked by other national media types to comment.

She was slandered once, after which he apologized, which she ungraciously refused to accept, because she needs to keep it going. As I said, attention whore.

I guess the appropriate thing for her to do was stay home like a good little girl and let a bunch of middle-aged clerics tell her what to do.

No, the appropriate thing to do was to choose a school that offered what she wanted (most of them), or pay for her own damn birth control. Instead she chose to subvert the teachings of the church of the university that she voluntarily chose to attend for the primary purpose of getting those “middle-aged clerics” to violate their religious beliefs. She’s no saint.

A) Complaining about someone being an attention whore when she is surrounded by members of Congress seems like a funny case of selective attention. Who in Congress is not an attention whore? And if Fluke is an attention whore, what does that make Limbaugh? This isn’t his first rodeo.

B) Limbaugh’s apology was incredibly ungracious, and Fluke was right to not accept it. Stephen Colbert pointed this out last night:

RUSH LIMBAUGH (3/5/2012): I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words.

Stephen Colbert: “Yes, Rush apologized for using those two words to describe her. But he still stands behind everything else he said.”

RUSH LIMBAUGH (3/2/2012): Sandra Fluke is having so much sex, that she can’t afford it.
RUSH LIMBAUGH (3/1/2012): She wants all the sex in the world, whenever she wants it, all the time.

RUSH LIMBAUGH (3/2/2012): They’re lined up around the block!

RUSH LIMBAUGH (3/1/2012): We’re talking sex addict frequency.

RUSH LIMBAUGH (3/5/2012): … an immoral, baseless, no purpose to her life woman

RUSH LIMBAUGH (3/1/2012): She’s having so much sex, it’s amazing she can still walk!

C) You persist in the idea that it is about Fluke herself, while her testimony wasn’t about Fluke herself, and so it doesn’t matter what she pays for or where she attends school. You don’t have to agree with her at all, but you should recognize that she was acting as an activist on behalf of a large class of people, such as nursing aides who work at Catholic-run hospitals in, say, California.

Bob-1: Limbaugh’s apology was incredibly ungracious, and Fluke was right to not accept it. Stephen Colbert pointed this out last night:

Sandra Fluke is not a slut. She just plays one on TV. Her testimony was political theater meant to muddy the dialogue and make people think the debate is about whether or not to deny women health care. What Limbaugh did was to focus attention on the fact that sex and sexual behavior is at the core of the Vatican’s doctrine on birth control. It’s not about women’s access to appropriate medical care for PCOS — the Vatican is completely okay with that. The Catholic Church’s policy about birth control is rooted in the observation that open access to birth control — especially outside the realm of marriage — is corrosive to family stability and what they regard as healthy bonds of sexual affection.

Now, look, I happen to think that the Catholic Church is wrong about birth control. But I will strenuously defend their right to their own doctrine. Because the Establishment Clause means nothing if religions can only preach, not practice.

What part of she is an activist who knew what was covered and chose to attend Georgetown anyway because she wanted to make them bend to her will on birth control AND gender reassignment surgery don’t you understand? What part of this was Kabuki theater staged by Democrats and wasn’t a real committee hearing anyway don’t you understand?.

I don’t see the relevance of “it wasn’t a real committee hearing”. Sure, it wasn’t. How does that impact on her argument? She was talking to real members of Congress, but that doesn’t impact on her argument either.

I also don’t see the relevance of “she is an activist”, “she knew what she was doing”, etc.

It all ad hominem. What part of ad hominem don’t you understand?

As for her beliefs about gender reassignment surgery — so what? Suppose she was an outright communist, and believed that personal property was theft. That still wouldn’t have any impact on her argument about birth control. What part of logical fallacy don’t you understand?

Or, alternatively, and less sarcastically, what part of your argument don’t I understand?

One reason I think Bill’s observations about Fluke are irrelevant because her argument about what other students were experiencing didn’t hinge on whether or not she was an activist, nor on what her other beliefs were. I have more reasons, but given that you aren’t going to much effort, I won’t either.

I assume that we at least can agree that whether the hearing was “real” or not also has no bearing on the merits of her argument, nor does her argument hinge on whether she was addressing members of Congress or some other group of people.

Keep in mind, Bob-1, that her testimony only exists because it was highly biased, even deceptive. She says what the powers in charge of the hearing wanted to be said. These “ad hominem” facts which you discount provide evidence of that. A professional activist who deliberately seeks out conflict and dissimulates about this particular issue, just so happens to get significant face time in front of a congressional committee. There is an unseemly reek of corruption and deception surrounding this particular choice of witness.

Gerrib, you have no room to complain about name calling. After all, most of us remember your comments in relation to Sarah Palin after the shooting in Arizona. You’ve never apologized for pushing that absurdity even after the shooter along with his friends and family noted that he never saw the flier and was never motivated about anything in relation to Sarah Palin.

I guess in Gerrib’s world, putting out a flyer saying “donate money to candidates running in these districts” is practicing one’s 2nd Amendment rights?

Seriously, Leland, since when is it okay to call anybody a slut or a prostitute?

1) I never called anyone a slut. So, you attempt to paint that picture will fail. You did accuse Sarah Palin of being complicit in the shooting. And now have falsely blamed her for the “second amendment remedies” comment.

2) There’s a difference between a slut and a prostitute. I think prostitute is perfectly acceptable term to use for people who sell themselves for sex. What other term would you suggest?

3) If you think I’m supposed to get incensed about Rush Limbaugh, you obviously missed my comments in a previous thread. I care about what Rush Limbaugh says about as much as I do Bill Maher or David Letterman. I see on Bing that Lady Gaga has 20 million twitter followers, but I don’t care what words she uses either.

That’s funny, again you defame people without one shred of evidence. You really embrace your dishonesty. Or is your point is that I should be against freedom of speech, and anything less than that suggest I’m defending someone? I haven’t defended Limbaugh unless you mean I haven’t rallied to taking him off the air. I’m also not going to say he can’t use them any more than I’ve rallied against taking Bill Maher off the air. Tell us, Gerrib, is your problem with his rights to use those words (your against the 1st Amendment) or that he used them in relation to Ms. Fluke (which means you are lying about my defending him)?

On what basis, other than personal animus, do you assume that she’s selling sex?

Ok Gerrib, what do call anybody who’s selling sex? Or do you not understand what you wrote? Here, I’ll quote it for you again (Emphasis yours): Seriously, Leland, since when is it okay to call anybody a slut or a prostitute? Are you wanting an answer about anybody, such as a person who sells their body for sex, or Ms. Fluke? Make up your mind.

And while you are at it, you want to go on record and denounce Bill Maher’s characterization of Sarah Palin? What about David Letterman’s comments about Sarah’s daughter? How about Bill Clinton’s treatment of female interns? Do you think it is wrong to call a woman a “slut”, but ok to have a woman that works for you give you felatio? Then there is Sen. Kennedy’s and Dodd’s desire to make a waitress into a sexual sandwich. Tell us, Gerrib, why do you point your boney finger of morality at us, while you defend so much? Or are you willing to state here, right now, that you find those acts immoral? Or are you willing to state you are just a hypocritical ass and don’t care at all about morality other than to impose your morality on us?

I am willing to call you an liar for claiming Sarah Palin incited Jerrod Loughner to murder, when he and those who know him all testified that he knew nothing about Sarah’s flyer or remarks made by Sharon Angle. You are lying about the connection their political comments had to his derangement, and if you had an ounce of credibility or shame, you would acknowledge your mistake.

Sorry, but I haven’t been keeping up with Gerrib’s gibberish lately. Okay, I apologize for that, it was just too tempting, and probably not original anyway. What I should have written was I haven’t necessarily read everything that Chris has written here, but I missed the part where he condemned actual sexual assaults by his comrades in ideology, the Occupy-ers. On the “sticks and stones” principle, one might believe that these assaults represent a much more serious, and pathological, attempt to control women than anything our harmless lovable fuzzball might say.

Let’s face it, she will NEVER have to prove her statements. She’s, (semi) obviously female, and no (liberal) women can be ‘forced’ to prove their statements in 2012, PC Amerika.

Plus, she’s, obviously a liberal, and no liberal can be ‘forced’ to prove their statements in 2012, PC Amerika.

And finally, she’s obviously becoming a well known, college campus liberal, law student’s for socialism talking head in the age of Obama, OWS, lying liberal henchmen, etc, NONE of whom can be ‘forced’ to prove their statements in 2012, PC Amerika.

Ms Fluke will soon become yet another ex-college campus radical, pro-socialist government activist, one world nut job, who gets QUITE wealthy telling the world why ALL of America’s rich people suck, except for her, her friends and the people they vote for, of course.

With any luck, she’ll try to carpool with a Kennedy during the election cycle.

Leland – the entire context of this thread is defending “poor Rush Limbaugh from the ‘mean girls’ who are picking on him.” That’s what it says at the top of the page. So, yes, defending Rush Limbaugh’s “argument” is in this case defending Rush calling somebody a slut and a prostitute. Trying to make some bogus hyper-literal argument about the meaning of “anybody” doesn’t help your case.

I haven’t discussed every public sexual peccadillo of the last two decades because that’s not the topic of the thread. But yes, the examples you cited were wrong. Here’s the thing – even if I hadn’t just said that, saying “they did it too!” doesn’t make it right. It didn’t work in kindergarten, it doesn’t work now.

Bottom line – Rush Limbaugh launched a repeated, vicious, divisive and false attack on a private citizen, then offered a lame half-apology. His fault, her fault, nobody’s fault, that’s wrong. No matter who else did what, he was in the wrong. His critics and advertisers are using the same First Amendment rights that protect Rush to express their opinions, and call him out for what he said.

the entire context of this thread is defending “poor Rush Limbaugh from the ‘mean girls’ who are picking on him.” That’s what it says at the top of the page. So, yes, defending Rush Limbaugh’s “argument” is in this case defending Rush calling somebody a slut and a prostitute.

So you posting in this thread mean you are defending him? I’m lost in how your logic works.

Trying to make some bogus hyper-literal argument about the meaning of “anybody” doesn’t help your case.

I didn’t notice your illiteracy. In the future, I’ll keep that in mind. Gerrib is both a liar and illiterate, check.

I haven’t discussed every public sexual peccadillo of the last two decades because that’s not the topic of the thread. But yes, the examples you cited were wrong. Here’s the thing – even if I hadn’t just said that, saying “they did it too!” doesn’t make it right. It didn’t work in kindergarten, it doesn’t work now.

I just quoted that so you will read it again. Look into your mirror, Gerrib.

Rush Limbaugh launched a repeated, vicious, divisive and false attack on a private citizen, then offered a lame half-apology.

Bottom line, Sarah Fluke stepped into the public concern by standing in front of Congress and testifying that the a law be made to force other taxpayers to cover her birth control. The rest of us have been asking what motivated her and having a discussion about it, and we won’t refrain from having such a discussion. Liars and illiterates, like yourself, can demand there is something immoral about having such a discussion while Limbaugh calls her names, but I say again, reread that paragraph you wrote.

On an entirely different note, Gerrib. I am very sad to pass along this news to you. I can’t say you introduced me to him, someone else I know that served in the Navy did so. However, you once linked to a comment he made, which caused me to start reading his work, regularly. I sincerely thank you for it.